View Full Version : Prog Attack IV is ready.
Finally, I got around to making the fourth in my series of prog comps. Prog Attack IV is comprised solely of music I've acquired since Nearfest 2003. Some of the disks were purchased at Nearfest, while others came later. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I had to leave some artists (Anekdoten, Nathan Mahl, Pychotic Waltz, OSI, Devin Townsend) off this comp. Oh well, maybe next time. Here is the track list.
Prog Attack IV
1) Prolog by Anglagard (Epilog)
2) Tales Of The Great Wars by Glass Hammer (Lex Rex)
3) Skin Game by Arena (Contagion)
4) Remote Control by After Crying (Show)
5) Horla Rising by Ars Nova (Android Domina)
6) The Silk Road by Steve Hackett (To Watch The Storms)
7) Inferno by Symphony X (The Odyssey)
8) Idea by Isildurs Bane (Mind Volume 4)
9) Gagutz by Frogg Cafe (Creatures)
10) Gudamy Le Mayagot by Thinking Plague (A History Of Madness)
11) Kivitetty Saatana by Alamaailman Vasarat (Kaarmelautakunta)
12) Ayo Aise by Woodenhead (Perseverence)
OK, progheads. Who wants a copy?
Dave M
hit me!
paiva@designshed.com
BarryL
03-10-2004, 08:23 PM
Count me in. Let me know if you need my address.
Demetrio
03-11-2004, 02:07 AM
One for me, please!!
Email me if you don't have my address anymore, ok?
Demetrio
progger@terra.com.br
DarrenH
03-11-2004, 05:52 AM
I'm interested. Some of that I already have but what self respecting progger wouldn't. :)
Let me know if you need my home address again. I think you've sent me stuff before.
Thanks Dave,
Darren
ForeverAutumn
03-11-2004, 07:21 AM
Yes please!
Let me know if you need my address.
Thanks!
Dave_G
03-11-2004, 08:40 AM
I would like one, I don't think you know my mailing address?
Dave
Yes please. Not sure if I have 3&4 but I know I like 1&2. Thanks...Hyfi
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
BarryL
11-24-2004, 09:35 AM
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
Here's my understanding of this issue.
1. At least in Canada, we pay a royalty to the Performing Rights Organization on ALL blank CDs sold in this country, whether they are for recording music or not. That royalty is there to compensate musicians for home recording. That means that in exchange for those "royalties" the consumer has purchased the right to copy. What we have not purchased is the right to resell. I don't know if this is the same in the U.S.
2. According to the RIAA, the copyright laws in the U.S. are such that you have the right to copy for relatives and friends, but not the right to resell copies.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
nobody
11-24-2004, 09:44 AM
I think the legality is a blurry issue, but from a practical standpoint people trading comps around here is a boon to the recording industry. The folks posting on here buy far more music than the average consumer and generally use the comps to discover new bands they would like to explore sooner. It's not like you're talking about a group of kids that download free music exclusively and never pay for squat. You're talking about people who are big music fans, who spend big bucks each year on music, and are simply trying a new method to discover more music to buy.
If any business intrest has a problem with that, frankly, they're idiots.
You have the right to personal use, you do not have the right to make and give away or sell copies to other people. The folks trading music on P2P systems are not making money and they are being pursued and fined in droves by the RIAA. You are opening yourself up to seriously large fines and by putting it out in the open like this you are making it very easy to be tracked down and the RIAA seems to really enjoy it.
DarrenH
11-24-2004, 09:55 AM
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
Maybe, maybe not but I don't look at that way. These comps are a source of new music for all to hear. It's a great way to introduce yourself to music you otherwise never knew existed. I have acquired a new appreciation for music and I owe it all the generosity of the people who have taken the time (not to mention spending their own money) to prepare and send these out. And I can assure you, if I like what I hear, I will seek out legitimate CD's. I have spent thousands over the last few years because of these compilations. Money the artists (or record companies or whatever) never would have seen.
Darren
I think the legality is a blurry issue, but from a practical standpoint people trading comps around here is a boon to the recording industry. The folks posting on here buy far more music than the average consumer and generally use the comps to discover new bands they would like to explore sooner. It's not like you're talking about a group of kids that download free music exclusively and never pay for squat. You're talking about people who are big music fans, who spend big bucks each year on music, and are simply trying a new method to discover more music to buy.
If any business intrest has a problem with that, frankly, they're idiots.
I see this kind of justification all the time, but it doesn't make something legal. It's not at all blurry, it's only blurry because you don't want to see it for what it is.
Now I don't necessarily disagree with your basic premise, I think that originally Napster did a lot to boost album sales, but I think now you have a whole generation of kids who think it is their god given right to get it for free, and in that case I think the RIAA is justified in putting the fear of god in them. The problem with this trading is that you don't know where it ends, it could get copied and handed off for 10 generations and then end up on the P2P systems.
Personally I use internet radio to sample new music, there are lots of good stations, the one I like is progrock.com
Wellllll, there's no proof that the discs actually changed hands, is there?
At this point it's all talk.
You do understand how a lawsuit works when a big guy comes after you right?
Dave_G
11-24-2004, 11:02 AM
There is no way in hell trading comps is illegal.
Dave
nobody
11-24-2004, 11:05 AM
It's no different than mix tapes that people have been making for decades.
BarryL
11-24-2004, 12:01 PM
You have the right to personal use, you do not have the right to make and give away or sell copies to other people.
For reasons of my own, I have in front of me a court document with the title: "Apellee's Opposition to Appellant Napster Inc.'s Emergency Motion for Stay Puruant to Rule 27-3 And Motion to Expedite Appeal." This is Appeal No. 00-16401, with the Office of the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals date stamp of July 23, 1990, at 9:48 a.m.
This document was filed by the recording industry against Napster. Napster was found to be infringing the plaintiff's copyrighted works and were asking for a delay in the proceedings, and the plaintiffs were rebutting the request for the delay.
The claim of the plaintiff's is that "Napster expressly designed a system to make available to millions of users unlimited copies of what Napster itself accurately labeled 'pirated music.'"
The plaintiff's assert: "Virtually every recording copied using Napster is subject to federal copyrigh protection (recordings fixed after February 15, 1972) or state law practices...."
Given the millions of downloads and the growing popularity of Napster, the Plaintiffs write that "the Court expressly found that plaintiffs are likely to be injured by 'reduced CD sales and impediments into entry to the digital download market.'" That is, the Plaintiff's argue that the court has found that the Plaintiff's were being damaged materially by Napster's activities. They are trying to establish that Napster has no grounds for further delays and that the court should dismiss Napster's delay tactics.
They then go on to argue that The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) is irrelevant and inapplicable to the Napster case. The crux here is that Napster was trying to claim that computers are covered under the AHRA as home recording devices. But the industry raised precidents showing court rulings that under the AHRA's definitions, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sytems Inc.)
Why is this important? Because the issue with Napster had to do with computer downloading, not copying music as covered under the AHRA. What we are dealing with in copying music we own and sending out a few copies falls under AHRA. So what does AHRA say consumers can do?
I haven't read the AHRA, but we have some clues in this document.
Continued
BarryL
11-24-2004, 12:33 PM
Continued from Pt. 1.
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) appears to cover the conditions under which purchasers of music can engage in home recording. It appears that the Act was an attempt to establish legal entitlement for certain aspects of home recording and the legal use of copying and distributing copyrighted works.
The AHRA appears to endorse the following: "Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights."
The Plaintiff's submission to the courts says: "The AHRA balances the interests of manufacturers, consumers, and copyright owners by 'plac[ing] restrictions only upon a specific type of recording device,' specifically defined in the statute, requiring such devices to be equipped with copy protections and that royalty payments be made based on their sale, and exempting consumers from copyright infringement lawsuits for private uses of AHRA-covered devices:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for the making of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." 17 U.S.C. 1008.
In other words, the Plaintiff's are arguing that a computer is not a covered device under the AHRA: "Thus, under Diamond, a computer is not a covered device, and a copy made by one Napster user of an MP3 file residing on another Napster user's computer hard drive is not a copy of a 'digital musical recording,' and is not covered by Section 1008" of the AHRA. So copying from computer to computer is not covered under AHRA. But it appears that copying from a CD which you own to a "medium for the making of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings" is. That is, making CD or Cassette copies or comps.
The Plaintiffs continue: "Moreover, even if it applied, Section 1008 exempts only "noncommercial use" by consumers, i.e., private copying -- not the wholesale distribution of music files among millions of anonymous strangers. Contrary to Napster's contention, the AHRA's legislative history fully supports this conclusion, providing that "home copies are used privately within the household (including personal vehicles) and are not used for implicit or explicit commercial purposes. Admission is not charged and users are a household and its normal circle of friends, rather than the public."
So here we have the Plaintiff's, which is essentially the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) representing all of the major labels, including Geffin, Sony, MCA, Atlantic, Motown, Capital, BMG, RCA, Universal, Elektra, Arista, Sire, Polygram, Virgin, and Warner Bros., arguing that Napster isn't protected by the AHRA, but that the AHRA does provide for home copying for private use and the sharing among the normal circle of friends of the household. This is where it gets pretty vague, but in my opinion, this means that the accepted wisdom of some that ALL COPYING IS ILLEGAL is not true. The AHRA makes copying legal under some circumstances.
The main worry of the recording industry in this document is that Napster had that ability to do huge amounts of damage because it basically allowed unlimited distribution and copying of copyrighted material and effectively removed control of sales and distribution from the legal owners of the material.
I would argue that the very limited nature of distribution among a small community of internet friends constitutes an extension of the household, and that as long as the original sender of the material owns the CDs from which the material is copies, it appears to be perfectly legal.
We should all do ourselves a favour and read the AHRA for ourselves. That may clarify the situation further.
Davey
11-24-2004, 12:50 PM
We should all do ourselves a favour and read the AHRA for ourselves. That may clarify the situation further.
Well, the RIAA clearly and unambiguously does view it as copyright infringement so it's probably best to make sure that if you are offering compilations for trade on a site like this that they don't contain any RIAA member content. Fortunately, that's not too hard for most of us indie hipster elitist (and prog) snobs :)
BarryL
11-24-2004, 01:09 PM
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
By the way, welcome to our community of music lovers.
Given that your first four posts are about the illegality of comp trading and being sued by record companies, are you in any way connected to, or have professional relationships with, any record companies or law firms currently doing work for record companies?
I'm just curious about your motivation, given that you could have posted about anything music related.
BarryL
11-24-2004, 01:14 PM
Well, the RIAA clearly and unambiguously does view it as copyright infringement so it's probably best to make sure that if you are offering compilations for trade on a site like this that they don't contain any RIAA member content. Fortunately, that's not too hard for most of us indie hipster elitist (and prog) snobs :)
...and it don't clarify nothing. No wonder this stuff ends up in court. Who the hell knows what any of it means. That's what gives those with deep pockets (record companies, Elliot Spitzer, etc.) encouragement to vigorously prosecute their interpretation of their rights under the law. Legislators should be more responsible and do a better job putting out less defective product.
Davey
11-24-2004, 01:24 PM
I Tried to Read the AHRA...and it don't clarify nothing.
Yeah, but I don't think your umbrella extensions of the fair use provisions to all of your family, friends and internet buddies is gonna hold up in court. There were actually quite a few newspaper articles about exactly this type of internet group trading of compilations following the one in the New York Times early last year. I think I posted one from the local paper, but you can easily look up the NYT article entitled "For The Mix Tape, A Digital Upgrade And Notoriety" to get some views of people like us as well as from the RIAA.
BarryL
11-24-2004, 01:52 PM
Yeah, but I don't think your umbrella extensions of the fair use provisions to all of your family, friends and internet buddies is gonna hold up in court. There were actually quite a few newspaper articles about exactly this type of internet group trading of compilations following the one in the New York Times early last year. I think I posted one from the local paper, but you can easily look up the NYT article entitled "For The Mix Tape, A Digital Upgrade And Notoriety" to get some views of people like us as well as from the RIAA.
Actually, that article isn't that helpful. We're given two opinions.
1. Mr. von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asserted that making a noncommercial mix CD was probably legal under the "fair use" provision of copyright law, but that notion has not been tested in court. He said that because of the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, people who use blank audio CD-R's were probably in the clear legally because a portion of the price of those discs goes to the music industry.
2. Mr. Creighton of the recording industry association disputed that. Someone who is openly swapping CD's might get a cease-and-desist letter that could be followed by "more aggressive deterrence" if the activity does not stop, he said. "If there isn't any fear of repercussions, it's just going to continue to expand," he said, "while we try to give consumers legitimate alternatives." Copyright holders, not consumers, should decide whether certain kinds of copying are promotional or not, he added.
Of course, if the recording associations go to the government and get them to add a royalty fee to blank CD-Rs to pay artists for use of their copyrights, they are in effect sanctioning use of those copyrights. Why else would they be collecting the fee? Given that I paid the fee, I am entitled to copy my own CDs. Now, whether I can distrubute them to others may be in dispute, but surely they can't have it both ways. If they have forced me to pay for the right to copy, they shouldn't be allowed to come back and claim they weren't compensated. I don't know whether in the U.S. you have to pay for blank CDs.
Davey
11-24-2004, 02:02 PM
Actually, that article isn't that helpful. We're given two opinions.
Actually, I thought that's why it is helpful. It seemed as though some in this thread were only viewing the situation from one perspective when there are clearly two sides.
BarryL
11-24-2004, 02:17 PM
Actually, I thought that's why it is helpful. It seemed as though some in this thread were only viewing the situation from one perspective when there are clearly two sides.
Yeah. Helpful to know there are two sides, which suggests caution, especially for those who think caution is not required. Not helpful in that it doesn't provide guidance.
But thanks for the reference. I don't know how you did that so quickly.
N. Abstentia
11-24-2004, 02:19 PM
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
Don't worry, I called the police! You're all safe now, go back to what you were doing. The threat is over.
Finch Platte
11-24-2004, 02:54 PM
It's no different than mix tapes that people have been making for decades.
Tapes sound like caca to begin with, then when you start making copies, they sound even worse.
If you make a copy after copy after copy of a disc, well, you know what that sounds like.
fp <--- thinking: how many CDs have I bought cuz of comps I got in here??
By the way, welcome to our community of music lovers.
Given that your first four posts are about the illegality of comp trading and being sued by record companies, are you in any way connected to, or have professional relationships with, any record companies or law firms currently doing work for record companies?
I'm just curious about your motivation, given that you could have posted about anything music related.
I'm a software developer and a musician and I'm very sensitive to piracy and have spent a lot of time researching it. I'm a huge fan of progrock and I do everything I can to spread the word, and try to keep things legal. I found a new site recently for electronic distribution www.mindawn.com and while it isn't fully online yet, when it is their site is supposed to allow you to play any song 3 times for free as a demo, which is another way to sample music in addition to my previously mentioned point about internet radio.
I know Clive Nolan and I know he would absolutely pop a cork to find out an Arena track is on this compilation and being passed around. I'm afraid no one here is really looking at the bigger picture, and that is what happens after you hand out that initial copy, when they tell two friends, who tell two friends and now suddenly there are hundreds of illegal copies and the musician has never been compensated for their material that they spent hard time and money to write, record and release. Keep that in mind next time you think it's fine to hand it around.
I know Clive Nolan and I know he would absolutely pop a cork to find out an Arena track is on this compilation and being passed around. I'm afraid no one here is really looking at the bigger picture, and that is what happens after you hand out that initial copy, when they tell two friends, who tell two friends and now suddenly there are hundreds of illegal copies and the musician has never been compensated for their material that they spent hard time and money to write, record and release. Keep that in mind next time you think it's fine to hand it around.
Hey Crux-
I'm a photographer, illustrator and writer. I've experienced theft of intellectual property first hand. This is different. CD comping IS no different than making mix cassettes in the 80s.
Tell Clive that there's people hearing one of his songs who wouldn't otherwise hear it. Some of them that liked the songs went out and bought an Arena CD of his because of it. Clive should LOVE what we're doing.
Hell, if you can even FIND an Arena CD in a store, why would I buy it for $18 without trying it? I'm way too old and wizened (been burned too many times) for that sorta behavior.
It should be considered ADVERTISING. FREE advertising. And 20 years ago it would have been. I guess the world has changed and now everybody is struggling to make it in a world with extremely tight profit margins.
I just don't see how a song on a comp mix by way of introduction to an unknown new artist is taking food off that guy's table. You can say that there are multiple generations of duping songs (2 friends begets 4 friends begets 8 and so on), but that is not what goes on with these comps. The comps go out and are nopt re-reproduced. You are thinking in a very pessimistic manner.
This attitude of not allowing us to share music we buy with our friends (so that they may brought into the fold and buy it too) cuts your nose to spite your face, dig?
You wanna get pissed at someone for theft of intellectual property? Go after the piracy in Asia of EVERYTHING. Go after the people CHARGING for dupes of stolen material. That's where the real problem is.
Yeah. Helpful to know there are two sides, which suggests caution, especially for those who think caution is not required.
Even if it IS illegal, there's no PROOF that music actually changed hands. It's all just talk.
Even if it IS illegal, there's no PROOF that music actually changed hands. It's all just talk.
Let me see if I can put this in terms that make sense. The discussion has already occured on here for the offer and acceptance of this media. How hard do you think it is to track down the people who accepted it and have a search warrant issued if the RIAA wants to do it? There is enough evidence here to provide probably cause. Do you really want to go through that anal exam? What your saying is just ignorant and delusional. There is an amazing degree of self-justification going on with most of these reponses, it's really stunning to me.
Let me see if I can put this in terms that make sense. The discussion has already occured on here for the offer and acceptance of this media. How hard do you think it is to track down the people who accepted it and have a search warrant issued if the RIAA wants to do it? There is enough evidence here to provide probably cause. Do you really want to go through that anal exam? What your saying is just ignorant and delusional. There is an amazing degree of self-justification going on with most of these reponses, it's really stunning to me.
Well, unlike open internet file transfer which can be kept track of with invasive spyware by interested third parties, the mail service is still private and not subject to inspection by private parties.
The people talking about trading comps on this site- it's just hearsay. There's NO way to concretely prove that anything actually changed hands.
People have been trading music like this since the 60s. The RIAA has never tried to stop it in the past. They don't have a case and they know it.
Rather than beating this dead horse, try and beat some of the ones in my previous post about the ethics of doing this instead.
Finch Platte
11-24-2004, 08:35 PM
You do realize that what you are doing is illegal?
I'd say 90% of the comps I've made are primarily composed of tracks I've gotten off of free compilations I've gotten at record stores.
Yeah, we can argue all we want for our case(s), but it's pretty much been proven that record companies don't see it our way- they see it in a way that really doesn't work.
fp
so Troy, I'm trying to distill down what you're saying, and this is what I figured out:
1. You don't think what you're doing is illegal
2. Even if it is illegal, no one can catch you and prove you did it.
That's a very nuanced set of principles you seem to have.
Slosh
11-25-2004, 03:18 AM
That's a very nuanced set of principles you seem to have.
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
kexodusc
11-25-2004, 05:04 AM
At the risk of buying contraband (though I do live in Canada now and from what I've read, should be protected by the laws here), what have I got to do to obtain your intriguing comp?
BarryL
11-25-2004, 06:12 AM
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
You can be rude in a much more polite manner.
I think Clive Nolan is an outstanding musician and has done wonders for the resurgence of progressive rock music. I also am a musician and believe strongly in intellectual property rights. In fact, I issued a brief to the performing rights organization in Canada about 15 years ago - it was then called PROCAN, now SOCAN - not to go forward with the tax on blank cassettes to be paid as royalties to musicians. Why? Because it legitimizes copying. The went ahead and did it. Maybe they were more prophetic than I was, because copying has taken off. But now they are in the postion of trying to eat their cake and have it to. They still collect the royalties, and now want all computer buyers to pay a royalty on computer hard drives to compensate them for their perceived loss of royalties.
But I still stand by my contention that you can't charge me for the right to reproduce and then criticize me for reproducing. I have paid for that right. So in Canada, at least, I can reproduce for non-commercial purposes with the full moral sanction of the Canadian performing rights society and the Canadian Government.
As for Troy's post, I agree that technology is out of sync with the business model the record companies are still trying to operate to. People understand that artists don't get paid when their work is copied, and in spite of what the RIAA wants to claim, most people who hear copied work wouldn't want to buy those albums anyway. Most mainstream albums have one or two good songs and the rest is crap. Frankly, there is an oversupply of mediocre music, which drives down the value. IMO, the big record companies and the radio stations have created this problem, and now they want to legislate guaranteed profits. That's B.S. Steve Jobs was genius enough to see the future and take a chance, and it has paid off well for Apple. That is to allow people to pay for just the music they actually want. That way you can get those two great songs for $2.00 rather than $15.
Now, you might think that that is going to hurt artists. Yeah, it will hurt those who sell primarily on hype. But an artist now has global distribution and can make a lot more money if consumers really like that artists work. The record companies are screwed though, because they no longer offer a valuable service. Look at prog bands. They are almost all on independent labels, recorded in home or small studios, and they manage to eek out a living. With the Internet, life for these fringe artists will only get better. For one thing, they have complete control of their own artistic and business destiny.
In the business world, many businesses no longer file for patents because it doesn't really protect them, and they have to disclose their new ideas ahead of time. The world is changing, whether we like it or not. I agree with Crux that we need to consider that when we copy, artists don't get paid. But artists and RIAA need to understand what is really going on with copying and whether it helps them or hurts them in the long run. Also, let's be clear that the RIAA represents big music companies, not musicians directly.
Artists will benefit from downloading, IMO (there won't be any other way to buy music in ten years), but record companies will not. At least not the big crybabies of today. I don't know what Virgin is doing in the U.K., but at least someone like Branson has the balls to do it differently and change the model if he wants to.
kexodusc
11-25-2004, 06:24 AM
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
ROLMAO...Slosh, buddy...stop, you're killing me!!! You're not one to pull moral punches, are you??? :D
If we ever meet...I owe you a beer!!!
P.S. Kexodusc neither endorses nor condones any of the preceeding comments of this thread.
BarryL
11-25-2004, 06:58 AM
You've made a bold assertion that comp trading for non-commercial purposes among friends is illegal. I've gone way out of my way, during my work hours, to present an argument using the RIAA's own documents to support my case.
All you've done is make an assertion that it is illegal, and made implicit threats that people who send selelctions of songs from their own collections to others are at risk of a law suit. Just because the RIAA says so, doesn't make it so. Have they won any cases against one-off comp traders? On what grounds is exchanging of comps illegal? That New York Times article doesn't cite anyone being charged or prosecuted, and in the article he describes comp pyramid trading schemes where hundreds of CDs are sent out to hundreds of people at a time.
There's no evidence that I know of that making a recording of music which you have purchased for someone else is illegal. I contend that in Canada it is legal.
(I am not a lawyer and am not offering legal advice. This is only my opinion.)
Jim Clark
11-25-2004, 08:18 AM
When I logged on to my Brother In Law's pc this morning I was floored by all the requests for this prog comp. Two pages already!! Guess not exactly what I was thinking. Hey Crux, what's up wit choo? See your point but the way the matter was explained to me, the comps, created and distributed among friends is a grey area at best. And this is by a copyright attorney so it's not just idle internet musing.
I've waited for a response to Troy's suggestion that your bud should be grateful for the exposure, that does in fact lead to sales of his CD's that would have never happened otherwise. I don't think that this is an empty argument, simply compare the national avg of CDs per capita to the number on this board. This board is about spreading the word about great music and spends the dough backing it up. If a track is used in the creation of a comp to create buzz among friends, and friends is an important word here, I'd think someone might be happy for the free publicity. You say he'd pop a cork. Doesn't really seem like a wise choice to me but it's his choice to make. I'm wondering how many people you've turned off to Arena at this point? I can think of one but in fairness it's probably not something I'd like anyway.
jc
so Troy, I'm trying to distill down what you're saying, and this is what I figured out:
1. You don't think what you're doing is illegal
2. Even if it is illegal, no one can catch you and prove you did it.
That's a very nuanced set of principles you seem to have.
Well, if that's what you got, then that's what you got. There's a lot more that you chose to miss.
Do us a favor and get Clive Nolan to come and read my post and lets see what HE has to say for himself. How else are people gonna even know his band EXISTS? The radio? Please.
Again, you choose to NOT discuss any of the comments made in my Nov 24-4:51PM post. Nothing to say about my logic? No substantiated argument? Ahhhh well. Your loss.
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
Classic. Thanks Sloshy.
N. Abstentia
11-25-2004, 09:58 PM
Who is Clive Nolan? Never heard of the guy. Is he a musician?
I share this question with probably 95% of the people on this board. But if I get a comp, then I'll get to hear his music. If I like that ONE song I hear, I'll buy a CD. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
You think Clive would 'pop a cork' now?
I think Clive would 'pop a cork' if he knew you were speaking for him in a public forum.
I know Clive Nolan and I know he would absolutely pop a cork to find out an Arena track is on this compilation and being passed around. I'm afraid no one here is really looking at the bigger picture, and that is what happens after you hand out that initial copy, when they tell two friends, who tell two friends and now suddenly there are hundreds of illegal copies and the musician has never been compensated for their material that they spent hard time and money to write, record and release. Keep that in mind next time you think it's fine to hand it around.
kexodusc
11-26-2004, 05:02 AM
I think Clive Nolan busks the tables at a dive in Philly? Seem to recall he had a little band or something his boss let play on Wednesday nights.
Whoever he is he should be thanking people like the folks here for promoting his music free of charge so he can quit selling CD's out of the back of his mom's mini-van.
DarrenH
11-26-2004, 07:30 AM
Who is Clive Nolan? Never heard of the guy. Is he a musician?
I share this question with probably 95% of the people on this board. But if I get a comp, then I'll get to hear his music. If I like that ONE song I hear, I'll buy a CD. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
Clive Nolan was once the keyboard player for Pendragon and is one of the founding members of Arena. The other being Mick Pointer, the former drummer of Marillion. Arena are relatively unknown in the US despite releasing 8 albums with their first, Songs From The Lions Cage, in 1995.
And if it weren't for comps I received from folks here, I never would've known who Arena was. Now I own 5 full length albums and the follow-up ep's to Contagion.
Arena is just one example. I can think of dozens more where a song on a comp has introduced me to a new band which then led to a CD purchase.
Darren
kexodusc
11-26-2004, 07:36 AM
Nolan was the keyboardist from Pendragon??? Oh man, I think I might have actually shaken this guy's hand!!!
That brings up another point, I find it even funnier when musicians with less than stellar criminal records and respect for existing drug laws etc start citing the copyright laws as gospel.
Convenient morality?
Slosh
11-26-2004, 09:49 AM
Okay, so my other reply was inappropriate for this forum. So be it. Apparently others had the same reaction.
I, me personally, know that I've generated hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of dollars of album sales via my compilations. The type of music I prefer typically translates to about twenty songs per comp. Let's say at a median price of $13.50 per album I'm already getting close to $200 for one comp. Not to mention the many thousands of dollars I've spent on my audio systems, the thousands of dollars I've spent on my computer, the cost of blank media, jewel boxes, padded mailers, postage, printing supplies, and most importantly, my time and effort. And for what? A sense of satifaction in knowing that in some small measure I spread a brief bit of bliss to a few people I'll likely never meet (some of which are literally half a world away) , and a chance that others may do the same for me one day. And the same can be said of every person here that makes compilations for others to enjoy. And BTW, the regulars here really aren't comp traders per se. In the four years or so that I've been coming here I've never once seen anyone turn away someone because they couldn't reciprocate.
My question for you, Crux, is what have you done to aid your favorite little-known artists? My guess is not much, if anything.
If you don't question and challenge laws, well, you get what you deserve.
audiobill
11-26-2004, 03:49 PM
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
Slosh: You are my God. It needed to be said.
I, too, owe you a beer.
What a tool of a troll.
Cheers,
Bill
jack70
11-26-2004, 10:32 PM
Okay, so my other reply was inappropriate for this forum. So be it. Apparently others had the same reaction....
And BTW, the regulars here really aren't comp traders per se....
...My question for you, Crux, is what have you done to aid your favorite little-known artists? My guess is not much, if anything.
Well said Sloshy. You pretty much covered it all for 99% of the people here. The fact that this board is mostly people who do purchase MUCH MORE music than your average consumer ought to make Crux pay closer attention.
Even if it IS illegal, there's no PROOF that music actually changed hands. It's all just talk.What your saying is just ignorant and delusional. There is an amazing degree of self-justification going on with most of these reponses, it's really stunning to meHe's just jivin with ya (or mocking ya)... lighten up. Jeez.
Crux, you simply don't understand the dynamic here. Trading comps is NO DIFFERENT than listening to the radio. In fact it offers an even better return ($) for an artist because there's a much better time/cost/benefit ratio with such sampler CDs compared to radio. I've never listened to internet radio, nor do I intend to. I don't have the time, and they simply don't cater to my tastes. On the other hand I buy a LOT more CDs than the average person, and I buy many after hearing artists on comps... personal mix comps, and comps you see in all the mags. BTW, why on earth do you think SO MANY artists (try to) put their wares in such music-mag Comps? It's to get their wares heard!! That's all they (artists really) want... a free hearing by the public. And that's all a comp does. It's pretty simple.
So I totally agree with Troy here.. comp-trading is... in effect... FREE ADVERTISING. Piracy is piracy, but when Free advertising becomes piracy, we're getting into an Orwellian twisting of reality. You wanna guess how much it's cost me in time, effort and money for the comps I've sent out... with absolutely nothing asked or expected in return? Hell, I outta be suing some of those artists for all that "advertising" work! BTW, my last comp was nearly ALL LP cuts... it's material simply NOT available anywhere, and most of it NEVER will be.
The folks trading music on P2P systems are not making money and they are being pursued and fined in droves by the RIAA.That's clearly piracy (of a sort), and illegal. Sampling a cut on the radio... or on a web page... or on a comp, is NOT the same thing. If you don't understand that point, you're dumber than a rock.
As Barry kinda alludes to in the lawyerish mumbo-jumbo (heh heh).... is it OK for me to make a cassette tape of some various music I paid for, and let someone else (who hasn't paid for it) listen to it? Or are they "ethically" in the wrong in your warped view? Listening to cuts on Comps is no different. Let's have some stinkin common sense here. Stealing is stealing. Listening to new music... is listening to new music. Listening to new music... results in BUYING more new music. Buying more music... is good for the artist. It's really not that complicated.
I'll also add one basic economic truth that's (partially) at the root of this whole stinkin "problem". (it's been debated here before). It's a basic misunderstanding (by big corporations and their minion lawyers) of the underlying aspect of the true "worth" of a good... of it's being "priced" too much higher than it's "cost". Commerce (in the music industry) has not yet changed in response to the changes in technology. To paraphrase economist Tom Sowell: Asking (lawyers) where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from. Quite simply, most people will not continually overpay for a "good" they don't need (unlike essentials like food).
Personal computers for example, even though they are much better than just 10 years ago, are cheaper in price. If a PC was "artificially priced" at say $20K, how many people would bother to keep buying them? Answer: Only a slowly dwinding number (of elites). Crux, this board is such an elite. And you've got everything... completely ass-backwards.
mad rhetorik
11-29-2004, 09:00 AM
Go f<a>uck yourself, troll. Nuanced enough for you?
I'm with ya Sloshy. This Crux guy smells funny, if you get my drift.
3-LockBox
12-04-2004, 06:34 PM
>"OK, progheads. Who wants a copy?"<
I have heard a few of those groups from Demetrio's comps, and I own <b>Glass Hammer</b> <i>Shadowlands</i> and I like it pretty well. (GH and IQ remind me a lot of Camel)
DariusNYC
12-05-2004, 02:35 PM
One point about the legality-copying theme in this thread:
A few people, including the original complainer, are blending together two separate issues, and it would help to keep them separate:
First, is it legal or illegal to do what DPM is doing? There may be a clear answer to that or it may be a gray area.
Second, is it wrong to do what DPM is doing?
You could say there's a third question as well: Are any of us likely to ever get in trouble for doing what DPM is doing?
Let's not mix these up by arguing against a statement that this is illegal by saying that it shouldn't be so. Whether it should be illegal and whether it is are totally different questions, and arguing that way truly is wishful thinking.
Also, arguing it's illegal is not an argument against someone saying why they don't think it's wrong. Lots of things that aren't ethically wrong are illegal, and lots of things that aren't illegal are ethically wrong.
Someone could admit it may be illegal, in response to the first question. Then say he believes it's not ethically wrong, in response to the second question. And, if he thinks the answer to the third question is, that the law almost surely wouldn't be enforced against someone like him, then it sounds like this person should have no problems with distributing comps once in a while, to a few friends. Right? I bet that's the position that a lot of us take.
MindGoneHaywire
12-05-2004, 03:23 PM
I think you're right on here, Darius. I think we should all accept that this is in fact illegal. Crux should accept that trading comp CDs is not the only illegal activity that some people don't get upset about.
I've spent a fair amount of time on the Asylum's Outside board pointing out to people that when they post copyrighted articles verbatim, rather than posting an excerpt with a link, that they are engaging in a potential violation of copyright infringement. I think most of us understand & accept that this applies to comp trading as well. I started doing this because in a discussion of file-sharing elsewhere on that site, one of the more obstinate jerkoffs put up a nt post with a subject line that suggested that because I didn't buy the RIAA argument against file-sharing lock, stock, and barrel, that I must be a file-sharer. Something about ripping software. I'd never had ripping software on my computer. However, this other guy regularly posted copyrighted articles from newspapers. That was okay, I guess.
Much as every police officer on the road does not pull over every vehicle exceeding the speed limit, I think it helps to understand that the RIAA has been going after people who are offering 1,000 or more songs for download through file-sharing services. Not comp traders, or people who have illegally used file-sharing software to download a few songs, either. And they haven't gone after people who only download but don't allow others to download from their computers. If you don't have a great number of copyrighted MP3s in a shared folder, they wouldn't be targeting you, to the best of my knowledge.
Not all their lawsuits are going to fly. There are privacy issues at stake, and IPs such as Verizon did go to court to see to it that the RIAA's subpoenas under the DMCA would be refused. I don't remember what the outcome was, specifically. But I do remember that the RIAA sued an elderly woman wrongfully. Her IP address had been spoofed & whoever it was the RIAA actually downloaded from had a bunch of new-ish top 40 stuff, gangsta rap, stuff like that. The elderly woman had a Mac & couldn't have been file-sharing anyway. Yet she was dragged into court.
If a musician is going to look at this site & see that copyrighted materials are being illegally traded & decides he wants to do something about it, go for it. Somehow I doubt it. I think most musicians understand that the majority of income derived from the vast majority of bands comes from live performance and merchandising, not label-paid royalties from record sales. Most musicians understand that if the latter-day equivalent of mix tapes are traded amongst potential fans, that new fans are potentially created. New fans that might not have otherwise been created. The more fans, the more likely it is that people will go to see the musician in question if & when they happen to perform live in the potential fan's area. And perhaps purchase their merchandise. Or even purchase their albums. Wait, wasn't that why this was illegal? Because people were trading one copyrighted song that should have been purchased and not given away?
Well, yes, it is technically illegal. So go ahead & finance a lawsuit to target someone who's trading comps. This is a joke, right? I think I saw a post that said something about a search warrant? I mean, that's over the top. Tell you what, come & get me. I'm on the Lower East Side & I've got a few comps that people have sent me illegally.
The reality is that the RIAA is targeting pre-teens, teenagers, and college age-adolescents, for the most part. That's where most of the file-sharing is being done. If someone wants to bleat that a bunch of audiophiles trading comps is illegal, go & try to do something about it. I picture a judge laughing at an RIAA lawyer. Wait, the RIAA would never have one of their lawyers working on such nonsense. Maybe somebody else would. Maybe not. Either way, I don't think anyone on this board is in any danger. I do think it's wise to perhaps not be so blatant about offering comps for trade, as a more discreet approach might ward off some of this nonsense, but there's certainly nothing illegal about posting a tracklist & saying hit me w/a PM offline if this looks interesting, or something like that.
This community has been trading comps for years. In the late 1970s & early 1980s the RIAA told us that home taping was killing music. Today someone who knows a musician thinks that person would object to one song being used on a comp. That may be true, but if it is, that musician is misguided in my opinion & doesn't understand that the people who hear the illegally shared recording may become potential fans. If they don't hear that illegally shared recording then the chances are slighter this will happen. Is the big picture really that difficult to see here?
Rationalizing illegal activity may not be the greatest thing, but let's keep in mind--perhaps most importantly--that prior to the AHRA only 12 years ago, making ANY copy of a copyrighted recording--even if it was only for use by the person who paid for the recording--was "illegal." Any time any person made a cassette tape of a record for any purpose, they were breaking the law. They were not prosecuted. And I'd be quite shocked if anyone were prosecuted over comp trading. It's simply too vague & doesn't lead to enough of the type of activity that the RIAA is in fact interested in prosecuting. Filing lawsuits costs money. When comp traders are prosecuted then I think it'll be enlightening to shareholders of the corporations that own labels what's being done with their money. In the meantime, if you want to focus on illegal activity, go after people who spit on the subway or smoke a joint in their residences.
DariusNYC
12-05-2004, 04:25 PM
I'm with ya Sloshy. This Crux guy smells funny, if you get my drift.
In my opinion, although Crux is clearly not Mr. Personality, and he would've gotten the greater benefit of the doubt if he had first made some good-natured posts on musical topics before posting on this point, I don't think he's a troll and I think this issue is one he has strong opinions on, and one that's worth considering seriously whether or not one agrees with his views.
MindGoneHaywire
12-07-2004, 04:59 PM
I could've started a new thread for this, but I just SO like the idea that I'm continuing to post in an old thread about prog. Well, it was supposed to be about prog. What the heck made me open this thread anyway? I guess it was because it's not often that threads about prog grow an extra two pages.
Anyway, there's been a study released by the Pew Center about the views that musicians hold on file-sharing. Excerpts:
...musical artists typically sit out the rhetorical crossfire over copyright protection. This silent majority is the central focus of a new survey on Internet file-sharing, which discovered a significant sentiment: Most artists don't view unauthorized swapping of music and movies as a threat to their livelihood, even if many think it should be illegal.
While the study, released yesterday by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, found that about half of the artists it surveyed think unauthorized file-sharing should be illegal, it also concluded that "the vast majority do not see online file-sharing as a big threat to creative industries. Across the board, artists and musicians are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use," according to the study, which also found that "two-thirds of artists say peer-to-peer file sharing poses a minor threat or no threat at all to them."
"The study by U.S. researchers ... suggests musicians do not agree with the tactics adopted by the music industry against file-sharing. While most considered file-sharing as illegal, many disagreed with the lawsuits launched against downloaders.
Here's the link to the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39155-2004Dec6.html
And another one from the NY Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/arts/06down.html?th
Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4067031.stm
and
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,65927,00.html
and if you really dig reading what I presume is essentially a very similar report on the survey, you can go to
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=6997352
also. If you'd like to see the survey itself, it's at
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Artists.Musicians_Report.pdf
I guess the guy from "Stadium" or whatever the heck that band's name is was in the minority on this.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.